Conflict is inevitable, war is not
We are not doomed to another wave of the Russo-Ukrainian violence — we have to say ‘no’
In Central and Eastern Europe, a possible war between Russia and Ukraine is everywhere.
It is in newspapers, television and social media. It is even present during Sunday family dinners. Many people are scared, as they should be. War is not a normal part of our lives that we must get used to — war is a disastrous machine that, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, led to almost one million deaths around the world between 2010 and 2020, including 7,101 deaths in Ukraine.
War is an abnormality that happens when the voices of those saying “no” to bloodshed are marginalized, and the majority remain silent. That silence — or indifference, as Holocaust survivor Marian Turski calls it — is what makes the difference.
One can say that wars have happened before, and will happen in the future. While the first part is of course true, the last does not have to be so. The constant element of our existence is conflict best understood as a situation where at least two actors pursue mutually incompatible goals — not war.
Research in the field of peace and conflict studies notes that violent behaviour is not genetically programmed into human nature. We can be destructive, yet we also can make positive social changes. Wars are made by humans, and so is peace — we just have to decide not to be indifferent. Or, as social psychologist Peter T. Coleman wrote, we must “get up and move.”
Some politicians did just that. On Feb. 7, French President Emmanuel Macron flew to Russia to speak with his Russian counterpart. A week later, Zbigniew Rau, chairman-in-office of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Yet it is not just politicians that should be involved in conflict prevention. A possible war would affect us all: scholars and religious leaders, midwives, construction workers, students, retirees, disabled people and LGBTQ+ citizens — even those not interested in wars at all. We should all say “no” to war if we do not want it.
Immediate tools available at the policy level are already in action. These include international negotiations, mediation and support offers, as well as threats of co-ordinated sanctions. Yet peace-building is a task for everybody.
Experts should not focus on addressing questions such as “when will the aggression happen, and who will react and how?” Our culture is militarized enough. Instead, they should work with other scholars on what can be done to prevent war, prepare policy recommendations and put pressure on those in charge to apply them. They should also engage with influential intellectuals from other countries in problem-solving workshops.
Similar strategies have worked before. Behind the peace agreement signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993 were informal, secret talks in Norway between middle-level actors from Israel and Palestine.
Scholars should also work as bridges between leaders of their countries and citizens. Because in the centre of armed conflicts are people.
We should all stand up and say “no” to war. This is our voice that makes the difference. And protests against the militarization of reality can have various forms: wearing certain clothes and symbols; signing petitions and writing letters to government officials; and organizing boycotts, marches, sit-ins and demonstrations.
The strongest tool that we have is nonviolent resistance, which has changed the course of history before. Estonians used singing when struggling for their independence in the 1980s. In 1989, around 700,000 of them (alongside 500,000 Latvians and one million Lithuanians) joined hands together, making a “Baltic Chain” connecting the three countries and showing the significance of peopleto-people power.
In the same year, Polish Solidarity, one of the largest nonviolent resistance movements, successfully resisted the communist regime, which started a transformation in this part of Europe.
People power was successful in the past, and can be successful today. We just cannot be indifferent. As John Steinbeck admitted: “All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.”
Experts should work with other scholars on what can be done to prevent war, prepare policy recommendations and put pressure on those in charge to apply them. They should also engage with influential intellectuals from other countries in problemsolving workshops